Losing Louisiana

Reader Comments
Back to article

Some are quick to say let's not waste money in Louisiana, but why not use the same standard for all coastal areas (CA, esp) where each year we experience the same pattern of fires, floods, mudslides with million dollar homes sliding into the muds, the mountainside, the water. Wealthy Americans somehow get millions paid out by national insurance companies who get their money from the rest of the citizens who don't live perched precariously on mountains, or on Atlantic and Pacific Seaboard in million dollar beach homes.
No one cries out for us to wise up and abandon all the coastal areas which have been destroyed over and over. Yet after an event that was nature-inspired but whose destruction was multiplied by government error (i.e., Army Corps of Engineers) suddenly people say, "let's not waste money on Louisiana".
Double standards are wrong by any name. This is just the same old system of the rich can do whatever and we pay for it, but the poor are unattractive, unwanted, and we'll ignore them until they go away.
For any who bother to know the physical realities, the original and early additions to the city of New Orleans lie on higher ground and did not flood or would not have flooded during Katrina without the errors of the army of dishonest businessmen who view a federal contract as a license to steal by shoddy workmanship and producing substandard products.
The entire nation should discuss all the problems with coastal areas and let our scientists come up with a fair solution and our political leaders devise a financially reasonable way to handle the inevitable destruction of untenable beach homes, mountain homes, flood plain homes in a way that treats the poor of the Gulf Coast States in the same manner as the rich of the coastal states from California to the Carolinas.
Note: It is pathetic really that whatever the topic, there are poor souls who cannot help themselves from Clinton bashing. And, how can we live without our daily dose of, "Global Warming is an ungodly, liberal myth." Yep, fellas. I think it'd be more fun to believe that Global Warming is a Clinton strategy for him to become Supreme Ruler in his own Universe. Maybe he joined that religious group out .... never mind.

Elizabeth of VA 12:18AM July 01, 2009

That makes absolutely no sense. Findings are reported as research is conducted, papers are published in scientific journals, and these are then re-written for a general audience.

Terence H. of GA 10:51AM June 30, 2009

with Al of NM.
Why have we spent all that money to rebuild Louisiana when all estimations seem to state that the bottom part of the state is not sustainable?
All of that building could have been relocated to a better and safer area.

Joan Dalton of KS 9:51AM June 30, 2009

JUST ASK BILL CLINTON. HE WILL GIVE YOU ALL THE SECRETS THAT HE CAN. HE MIGHT EVEN GIVE YOU THE PLANS TO BUILD A SMALL REATOR TO GO IN YOUR SHIP.

GARY of NC 4:02AM June 30, 2009

An article in New Scientist seems to suggest that most of the U.S. will be uninhabitable by 2100. The media should establish some sort of general Global Warming coherence editorial board. That way the Cassandra stories could be coordinated. At the least individual stories should cross-reference related stories.

G. Ham of IN 6:37PM June 29, 2009

Hello am Philip and a senior high school leaver, i will like to build a ship with a cardboard and move to build a mini ship using metal. i am science student by the way and will be very happy if u provide with the blueprint of u s current warships. i have search for it on the net but cannot one i will
be very grateful if u guys help me. thanks.

Philip of GA 2:29PM June 29, 2009

Seems to me that a little less Louisiana would be a good thing.

Spence of CA 2:26PM June 29, 2009

I could never understand why the Federal government would spend $120 billion on a city that probably won't exist in 50 years. If Cap and Trade is too expensive, how much will it cost to relocate America's 6 busiest seaports?

Al of NM 2:01PM June 29, 2009